Mayor: North Port should sell Warm Mineral Springs

Mayor issues position statement about potential sale of city landmark

North Port Mayor Linda Yates issued a statement explaining her position in favor of the city's selling its half-interest in Warm Mineral Springs.

Dale White

STAFF REPORT

Published: Monday, February 11, 2013 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.

NORTH PORT - Tonight, the North Port City Commission discusses whether to accept Sarasota County's $2 million offer to buy the city's half-interest in Warm Mineral Springs.

Facts

ON THE AGENDA

During its 6 p.m. meeting today, the North Port City Commission will discuss whether to accept Sarasota County's offer to buy the city's half-interest in Warm Mineral Springs.

To explain why she favors the city's selling its stake in the tourist attraction and archaelogical site, Mayor Linda Yates has issued the following statement - which HeraldTribune.com publishes here in its entirety.

Q/A position paper about Warm Mineral Springs by Mayor Linda Yates:

Regardless of where people stand on the subject of Warm Mineral Springs, common interest appears to be in minimizing taxpayers' risk and liabilities while maximizing economic opportunity, public use and preservation. As we all work toward achieving the common goals, I'll share my perspective on some of the frequent questions and comments.

Why did the city not honor the ITN agreement with the County?

An ITN (Invitation To Negotiate) is a process government can use to acquire products and services. In July the City and County unanimously agreed to use the ITN process, rather than an RFP. Staff was directed to draft a scope of services for consideration by both Commissions. The City did not reject using the ITN process – it simply did not approve of the contents staff came up with.

Why is the City not addressing the June deadline?

An ITN process was estimated to take 6-8 months. Considering concerns with the ITN contents and time being of essence, in November the City requested a meeting with the County asap and suggested looking at a short-term concessionaire agreement. The County declined at that time. The City cannot force the County to seek bids for short-term operations to keep the Spring open after the previous owner's 30 month term of exclusive use expires.

How much has the City made from the Spring operations over the past two years?

Nothing. The public paid $5.5 million in cash and in addition the seller was given exclusive use of the property to continue their business for 2.5 years retaining 100% of the revenue, paying no rent, fees, taxes or assessments. That was part of the total value conveyed to the seller and comes to an end in June 2013.

How can the City attract tourism and revenue if it doesn't own the Spring?

Warm Mineral Spring has brought tourists to the area since the 1960's. Back in 2007 it was estimated the site attracted nearly 80,000 visitors annually. The Spring and surrounding area have been part of the City for over a decade when it was annexed to expand the City's tax base. Based on a 2010 appraisal, aside from property taxes, the combined fire/rescue and road/drainage assessments alone was nearly $30,000 a year. However since the City jointly purchased the property, assessments along with other taxes, fees and ownership responsibilities have been an annual direct loss of revenue to the City. Loss of revenues and costs associated with government owned property are essentially absorbed by residents and businesses. Private ownership of property generates assured income to the City.

If the City doesn't own the Spring how can it be protected?

There are natural assets and environmentally sensitive areas within the City that are owned by other entities yet are protected. Whether publicly or privately owned the environmental, historical and hydrological aspects of Warm Mineral Spring are already protected and have been for a long time prior to the public purchase. The City's ULDC Regulations Chapters 9, 55, 57 and 58 relate to the Spring. There is also oversight by other governmental agencies.

The public voted to buy the Spring to keep it open to the public so why would the City sell it?

The purchase of the Spring was not approved by voters through a referendum. The Spring and day spa business area only encompasses about 21 acres of the total 81 acres purchased. 60 acres of the vacant land could potentially be better utilized by the private sector for a hotel, restaurant, gift shop, lodges and other commercial ventures. If the 81 acres were divided and the County retains just the portion where the Spring is located, the adjacent land could then be sold to the private sector. That could expedite business development and put surplus acreage of vacant land back on the tax rolls. That also protects businesses (restaurants, salons, health services, etc.) throughout the City from being disadvantaged by the private entities operating similar businesses on publicly owned property in partnership with the Government.

If the City doesn't own the Spring won't it cost taxpayers more if just the County owns it?

North Port taxpayers are also County taxpayers. Under the current agreement the County and City split all expenses 50/50. In essence residents and businesses in North Port contribute to both halves of expenses while the rest of the County taxpayers only contribute to the County's half. Under County ownership all County taxpayers share the expenses equally.

While it is unrealistic to resolve issues in a way that satisfies everyone, in my opinion the City selling its share actually moves things in a positive direction toward accomplishing maintaining public access to the spring, facilitating opportunities for private business development, putting commercially zoned property back on the tax rolls and alleviating the public from risk and liabilities.

<p><em>NORTH PORT</em> - Tonight, the North Port City Commission discusses whether to accept Sarasota County's $2 million offer to buy the city's half-interest in Warm Mineral Springs.</p><p>To explain why she favors the city's selling its stake in the tourist attraction and archaelogical site, Mayor Linda Yates has issued the following statement - which HeraldTribune.com publishes here in its entirety.</p><p><b>Q/A position paper about Warm Mineral Springs by Mayor Linda Yates:</b></p><p>Regardless of where people stand on the subject of Warm Mineral Springs, common interest appears to be in minimizing taxpayers' risk and liabilities while maximizing economic opportunity, public use and preservation. As we all work toward achieving the common goals, I'll share my perspective on some of the frequent questions and comments. </p><p><i>Why did the city not honor the ITN agreement with the County?</i></p><p>An ITN (Invitation To Negotiate) is a process government can use to acquire products and services. In July the City and County unanimously agreed to use the ITN process, rather than an RFP. Staff was directed to draft a scope of services for consideration by both Commissions. The City did not reject using the ITN process – it simply did not approve of the contents staff came up with. </p><p><i>Why is the City not addressing the June deadline?</i></p><p>An ITN process was estimated to take 6-8 months. Considering concerns with the ITN contents and time being of essence, in November the City requested a meeting with the County asap and suggested looking at a short-term concessionaire agreement. The County declined at that time. The City cannot force the County to seek bids for short-term operations to keep the Spring open after the previous owner's 30 month term of exclusive use expires.</p><p> </p><p><i>How much has the City made from the Spring operations over the past two years?</i></p><p>Nothing. The public paid $5.5 million in cash and in addition the seller was given exclusive use of the property to continue their business for 2.5 years retaining 100% of the revenue, paying no rent, fees, taxes or assessments. That was part of the total value conveyed to the seller and comes to an end in June 2013. </p><p> </p><p><i>How can the City attract tourism and revenue if it doesn't own the Spring?</i></p><p>Warm Mineral Spring has brought tourists to the area since the 1960's. Back in 2007 it was estimated the site attracted nearly 80,000 visitors annually. The Spring and surrounding area have been part of the City for over a decade when it was annexed to expand the City's tax base. Based on a 2010 appraisal, aside from property taxes, the combined fire/rescue and road/drainage assessments alone was nearly $30,000 a year. However since the City jointly purchased the property, assessments along with other taxes, fees and ownership responsibilities have been an annual direct loss of revenue to the City. Loss of revenues and costs associated with government owned property are essentially absorbed by residents and businesses. Private ownership of property generates assured income to the City.</p><p><i>If the City doesn't own the Spring how can it be protected?</i></p><p>There are natural assets and environmentally sensitive areas within the City that are owned by other entities yet are protected. Whether publicly or privately owned the environmental, historical and hydrological aspects of Warm Mineral Spring are already protected and have been for a long time prior to the public purchase. The City's ULDC Regulations Chapters 9, 55, 57 and 58 relate to the Spring. There is also oversight by other governmental agencies. </p><p><i>The public voted to buy the Spring to keep it open to the public so why would the City sell it?</i></p><p>The purchase of the Spring was not approved by voters through a referendum. The Spring and day spa business area only encompasses about 21 acres of the total 81 acres purchased. 60 acres of the vacant land could potentially be better utilized by the private sector for a hotel, restaurant, gift shop, lodges and other commercial ventures. If the 81 acres were divided and the County retains just the portion where the Spring is located, the adjacent land could then be sold to the private sector. That could expedite business development and put surplus acreage of vacant land back on the tax rolls. That also protects businesses (restaurants, salons, health services, etc.) throughout the City from being disadvantaged by the private entities operating similar businesses on publicly owned property in partnership with the Government. </p><p> </p><p><i>If the City doesn't own the Spring won't it cost taxpayers more if just the County owns it?</i></p><p>North Port taxpayers are also County taxpayers. Under the current agreement the County and City split all expenses 50/50. In essence residents and businesses in North Port contribute to both halves of expenses while the rest of the County taxpayers only contribute to the County's half. Under County ownership all County taxpayers share the expenses equally. </p><p>While it is unrealistic to resolve issues in a way that satisfies everyone, in my opinion the City selling its share actually moves things in a positive direction toward accomplishing maintaining public access to the spring, facilitating opportunities for private business development, putting commercially zoned property back on the tax rolls and alleviating the public from risk and liabilities.</p>